From my vantage point as lead pollster for the Democratic nominees in 1992 and 2000 – part of the closing clutch of pollsters in 2004 and invited noodge in 2016 I have little quarrel with the harshest of these criticisms.

Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy.

So did the handling of the email server – paid Wall Street speeches – and the ‘deplorables’ comment.

And her unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence left her exposed to attacks first by Bernie Sanders and then by Donald Trump and unable to offer credible promise of change.

Yet the accounts of Hillary Clinton are very incomplete – miss the reasons for her ambivalence and miss most of the big structural forces at work that made it hard for her to commit to a different path.

Related

Comments

The Democrats lost when they shafted Bernie. Whoever get in power matters little to the controlling wealthy as we have seen over many Presidencies.
Putting one candidate against another is a ploy used widely to avoid presenting policy and track records, which matter much more than personalities. People get sucked in arguing one candidate against another. The US public have cheer leader mentality that has been carefully groomed.

Bernie was the closest to a policy driven candidate that has been seen since Ralph Nader.
Social media amongst the younger set now has reached a very significant level of sharing that helped Bernie.

Clinton’s have never stood for a decent living for any but the warmongering wealthy. Murderous bastards facilitating misery and death for millions.